Vasantha vs State Of Tamil Nadu

2026 INSC 513 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. ................. of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 17310 of 2025)

Vasantha … Appellant

versus

State of Tamil Nadu and others … Respondents

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. A sordid saga of a mother accusing her son and daughter-in-law of

cheating her lays foundation for this litigation.

3. The mother, Vasantha, the appellant herein, got registered FIR No. 10

dated 03.05.2025 on the file of Trichy City Police Station under Sections 406

and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with Section 24 of the

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. In her

complaint, she stated that she was aged about 75 years and that, her

husband, Vanuvamalai had passed away. She stated that she had two sons, Signature Not Verified

Karthikeyan Manikandan and Venkatesan, along with three daughters, Digitally signed by babita pandey Date: 2026.05.19 17:46:02 IST Reason:

Kanagalakshmi, Maheswari and Akilandeswari. According to her, Karthikeyan Manikandan, accused No. 1, and his wife, Vasupradha, accused

No. 2, got all the family properties transferred in her name by way of a family

settlement on 22.05.2019 and, thereafter, got her to sell an extent of land

admeasuring Ac. 11.33 Cents for developing a layout. She was told that the

land had been sold at the price of ₹85,00,000/- per acre and ₹9,65,34,775/-

was credited into the bank account that was opened in her name. However,

the said amount was also withdrawn by both the accused. She gave full

details of such withdrawals along with cheque numbers.

4. She further stated that, in December, 2023, she received a notice from

the Income Tax department calling upon her to pay a huge sum towards tax

and at that stage, when she and Venkatesan, her son, along with

Ammaiyaraj, her son-in-law, met Bhaskar, they were informed that the land

was sold @ ₹2.75 crore per acre and that a sum of about ₹22 crore was paid

separately to the accused, apart from the money deposited in her account.

She alleged that the accused had transferred her house in the name of

Karthikeyan Manikandan, accused No. 1, promising to maintain her but they

drove her out, rendering her homeless. This complaint was signed by the

mother, Vasantha, and also two of her daughters and her second son.

5. The anticipatory bail petitions filed by the two accused in Criminal M.P.

Nos. 2797 and 2798 of 2025 before the learned I Additional District and

2 Sessions Judge (PCR), Tiruchirapalli, were dismissed on 16.07.2025. The

accused then approached the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, by way

of Criminal OP (MD) Nos. 12807 and 10169 of 2025, praying for grant of

anticipatory bail. However, by order dated 04.08.2025, the High Court denied

them relief, noting the allegations levelled against them. It was also noted

that the investigation was at a preliminary stage and that custodial

interrogation was necessary.

6. Surprisingly, within a month, the accused came up with a fresh

anticipatory bail petition in Criminal OP (MD) No. 15133 of 2025 before the

High Court. The appellant, Vasantha, filed an intervention application therein

opposing their prayer. However, by order dated 15.09.2025, a learned Judge

of the High Court granted relief to the accused. Strangely, no mention was

made in the order about the dismissal of the earlier bail application by

another Bench just a month earlier. The learned Judge, therefore, did not

even address the issue as to whether there was any change in

circumstances, warranting grant of such relief to the accused.

7. The learned Judge observed in the order that a real estate business

was being conducted and there was a money dispute between the parties

regarding the fixation of the rate of the land. The learned Judge did not advert

to the intervention application filed by the appellant or the fact that the

3 complainant was none other than the mother of accused No. 1, who alleged

that she was cheated by her own kith and kin.

8. Having secured anticipatory bail, the accused then filed Criminal OP

(MD) No. 17956 of 2025 under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking the quashing of FIR No. 10 of 2025. By

way of interim relief, they sought stay of all further proceedings pursuant

thereto. This petition was filed in October, 2025. By order dated 25.10.2025,

a learned Judge of the High Court granted interim stay as prayed for.

9. Aggrieved by the grant of anticipatory bail to the accused, vide order

dated 15.09.2025, the appellant approached this Court. Notice having been

ordered on 07.11.2025, counter affidavits were filed by the State of Tamil

Nadu as well as both the accused. The State, in its counter, stated that the

investigation was continuing and that the allegations disclosed serious

accusations, involving substantial financial transactions. The State pointed

out that the investigating agency had opposed the grant of anticipatory bail

before the Courts below on the ground that custodial interrogation of the

accused would assist in tracing the flow of funds and in collecting further

evidence related to the financial transactions. Further, the learned counsel

appearing for the State informed us that, though the accused appeared

before the Investigating Officer pursuant to the anticipatory bail order which

4 required them to do so, they did not cooperate as they failed to produce

documents which should be in their possession.

10. In their counter affidavit, the accused, respondents 2 and 3 herein, tried

to make out a case that there was a rift within the family and that it was the

other family members who were behind this litigation. However, no attempt

was made by them to demonstrate their bonafides by producing the

documents evidencing the actual rate at which the land was sold.

11. Further, we may note that this was the third anticipatory bail application

filed by the accused in three months. The accused filed anticipatory bail

petitions, one after the other, in July, August and September, 2025. As stated

earlier, the learned Judge did not note the fact that another Bench had, on

04.08.2025, dismissed the bail petition moved by the accused and, therefore,

did not even go into the issue as to whether there was any changed

circumstance warranting a different view being taken. Filing of anticipatory

bail petitions in quick succession in this manner, viz., three petitions in three

months, reduces that legal process, which is intended to pre-emptively

secure the personal liberty of an individual in deserving cases, to a mere

gamble and is nothing short of an abuse of process. We may also note that,

having secured the relief of anticipatory bail, the accused lost no time in filing

5 a quash petition in October, 2025, and secured stay of all further

proceedings. In effect, the accused brought the entire case to a grinding halt.

12. Given the near relationship between the parties and the fact that the

accused are alleged to have taken undue advantage of a family elder, a

septuagenarian, and also acted to the detriment of the other family members,

we are of the opinion that this was not a fit case for the High Court to have

granted anticipatory bail to the accused by treating it as a mere real estate

business in which there was a dispute as to the land price. The case went

beyond that and deserved a far more serious consideration than that given

by the learned Judge while extending relief to the accused.

13. The appeal is accordingly allowed, setting aside the impugned

judgment and order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the Madras High Court,

Madurai Bench, in Criminal OP (MD) No. 15133 of 2025.

..............................., J.

SANJAY KUMAR

..............................., J.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN May 15, 2026 New Delhi.

6